Grove the idea isn't that the GM can't make that Orc old and slow, or his chainmail is butted instead of riveted, or rusty, or whatever.  Of course he can.  The idea is that based on your explanation, there is no reason for the chainmail to not act as chainmail except because.  It is, like Gronan said, Schrodinger's Armor.

If the GM said, "There are factors you're not aware of." or "Yeah, that's odd, isn't it?" or something similar, then the player at least knows the GM has a coherent, cohesive setting and the rationale behind things is based on elements within the setting.

If the GM wants the Orc to have AC:11 for some reason, but that reason has nothing to do with the armor worn, then that tells the player the rationale behind the things is not based on elements within the setting, but something else.  It tells the player you're metagaming the setting, for whatever reason (usually tactical numbers, story or adjusting for desired outcome).

Why would you...
1. Desire to give the Orc AC:11?
2. Then proceed to give the Orc a logical incongruity (namely equipment that would make it much tougher).
...what is the point?

All you're doing is telling the player "Hey, there's something weird here, that Orc seemed weaker than it should have been."  Successful players look for clues, for patterns, for hints...it's how they find out things about the world and it's how they save their bacon and hopefully surprise the bad guys and not get surprised in turn.

You're just waving a big sign in their faces that says, "There is no verisimilitude here, so don't bother.  Things will change to be more difficult or harder as Grove decides on a whim from moment to moment.  If he wants you to succeed, you will, if he wants you to fail, you will.  Just roll your dice and enjoy the ride."

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him.

Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11? ]Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah... they are monsters, adversaries, extras... whatever. They function differently. Yes as a character the armor should be consistent but for the monsters, who cares if his chainmail is AC11 or his broadsword only does 1d6 damage or whatever?

Player: WHA? They use different weapons too? So if I pick up an orc broadsword it only does a d6?

GM: No, it would probably do a d8 like normal, just not for him.

Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!


Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Read the bold bits.  You may as well through the rule book away.  That is also the answer to your question in the other three about how long to stick with the rules if you need to make changes. For you, be honest, ditch the rules, and go to a "roll high is good system".  

You are saying here that the rules don't matter, your descriptions don't matter it's all arbitrary and the only thing that matters is the subjective feeling your head. You have said this before. What is important to you is the story you want to tell. Any internal constancy of the natural laws of the game world, or external consistency of the game rules be damned if it gets in the way of that cool story.

I can understand exactly why the player is pissed.  Hearing you say "it's a thirty foot cliff", by your own admission, tells nothing about how dangerous it would be to step off it. In the real world I can look at a thirty foot cliff and I have pretty good sense of exactly how dangerous it would be to step off it.  Show the player an Orc in tattered leather armour and one in polished chainmail and there is absolutely know way of saying for sure that the one in chainmail won't be easier to hit and damage because you decided today that he was going to have a worse AC, never mind the chainmail.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009439I guess Im not seeing the reality in absolute consistency. Sure the rules cover a lot but not every nuance of every situation. A buddy and I own the same gun, but we shoot very differently, in his hands its a much more lethal weapon. Sure, firearms skill (To Hit) has a part in that but if I were to assign the gun a damage dice, his would be higher, no doubt. The chainmail armor, worn by a trained warrior, is far more effective. Its not just lying there on a stool being beaten on by a chunk of steal. I agree with you guys that I could handled it differently but just looking at pictures of ancient armor reinforces my point that even lying on that stool every suit of armor isnt the same, world wide!

Guns are probably the worst example for this, but let's assume you, your gun-toting friend, and a 98-year old grandmother who's never picked up a gun are PCs.  You are grab the exact same gun, a .357 magnum and you're playing AD&D.  The gun does 1d10 damage.  You could say, Granny does 1d4 with it, you do 1d8 and your friend does 1d12.  It's quick and it's easy, but probably not the best way to handle it with that ruleset.  Plus, firearms are weird, Granny can't cut your head off with a two-hander no matter what she does, but she can sure empty your brainpan with a magnum.

So Granny does 1d10 if she hits, but she's got some crazy modifier to hit like -8.
You are unmodified to hit and roll a 1d10.
Your friend probably has weapon specialization with guns, so gets a +1 to hit and rolls 1d10+2 damage.

Guns kill regardless of who uses them, it's all in the skill with wielding them, so that's where the changes should be made.  Could you do it with damage, sure you can do whatever you want, but for every solution there's good and poor ways to do it, even if in the end it gets done.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009437Gotta ask. Why leave a comment like that. Its not constructive or helpful... just argumentative. You that miserable or what?

Because when you read the discussion between you and the player about the chainmail wearing orc, it reads like you are not playing the game as intended but are trying to adjust setting pieces so that a storyline within your head is realized instead of players determining the outcome of an encounter by their actions. It kills the suspension of disbelief that the players are fully three dimensional characters immersed in a living breathing world and not just some low resolution NPCs in a computer game acting out a story with a scripted plot and a predetermined ending.

Your biggest mistake is that in the exchange with your player, you essentially lifted the curtain and showed that The Great and Powerful Oz was nothing more than a charlatan pulling levers and twisting knobs on a special effects device designed to fool the rubes.

RGrove here is what you are doing: you are asking your player to join you for a game of chess, then with no warning or explanation you are moving a pawn as if it were a knight. When asked for an explanation you are saying "because that is the way this pawn moves today, for you pawns move like standard chess." Your pawn, err, player now wonders what is next, a bishop moving like a queen perhaps?

You were using mook rules, as seen in eg Feng Shui and 4e Dnd. Nothing wrong with them in the right genre, but it sounds like you and the player were in different genres with clashing ecpectations.

Nothing wrong with using mook rules, except by Grove's own amount that is not what was happening. Not a single mention of "I was using this game's mook rules" just a lot of I was ignoring this game's rules because I felt like it.

I'm a bit mystified how Rgorove, who couldn't let the rapid healing rules for 5e go, has no issue ignoring as basic a rule as AC.

Quote from: S'mon;1009451but it sounds like you and the player were in different genres with clashing ecpectations.

This isn't about clashing genre expectations. Rgrove and the player are playing a game with rules. The player knows the rules and how they work. The player quite reasonably expects that as GM Rgrove is also playing by the rules. Rgrove has stated to the player that he is not, in fact, playing by the rules. Quite the contrary, Rgrove has stated to teh player that he ignores the rules whenever he sees fit for any reason whatsoever.

What genre the game is has no relevance. It is an issue of are teh rules going to be followed in playing the game or not.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296I suppose all or most of GMing takes place behind the curtain, or a GM screen of some kind. Im not talking about hiding your notes or whatever though. I'm referring to decisions and actions taking place beyond the knowledge of the players, and in this case not hidden plot elements but actual game mechanics.

I have found in over 35 years of GMing that fairly regularly the actions of NPCs, if handled strictly as per the rules, would slow the pace of the game down and kill the tension/drama and excitement that is typically the goal of any session. No matter how versed you are with the rules, no matter how streamlined the process, it takes time to decide on an action, glance at a stat, consider modifiers, roll the dice, interpret and assign damage etc. then relay the information. (if indeed the players would notice) This is just a combat example but the same applies in any number of situations where there are a number of other figures involved.

I could give an actual example but I think most of you know exactly what Im talking about. Conclude a series of actions by the players with a long pause as you roll for henchmen #1 through #4 then check on the mooks your fighting, A-J etc.

BIG ADMISSION FOLLOWS - Please don't tell my buddies from 1979

When confronted with these situations I often fudge the die rolls and simply narrate the action in a way that seems plausible and typically beneficial to the flow of the story. I may roll the dice behind my screen, pretend to consult a chart or two to keep the players guessing but those NPCs and Mooks hit or miss based on my whim, not the dice.

There it is, I said it aloud.... I feel sooooo much better. Ok, Im prepared to take on whatever penance handed me.

Seriously though, is this such a rare practice? Do you guys really roll for each and every one of 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/Democrats that your players are up against?

Do you make rolls for NPCs who aren't even in the scene but are performing some function that may affect the story or do you just rule it?

Ok, on second thought here are a couple examples....

1. Players are waiting for a riverboat, the pilot was supposed to meet them at sundown. As GM you know a group of mooks were following the boat and ordered to detain or sink it. Do you roll for this encounter or do you just assign an outcome given the player characters weren't even there?

2. The PCs are fighting in a saloon, a typical brawl. They square off with first one drunk cowboy then another. In between, are you actually rolling for any of the other guys?

3. The PCs are stuck behind a barricade fighting a group of musket armed Frenchmen. There are a dozen or so indian warriors with them. The characters have 6 English regulars lending a hand. Do you really roll for each and every combatant between players turns? Or does it sound something like...

"Ok, Roderick hits an Indian pretty hard, the guy goes down. While you reload and pick out targets muskets continue to fire, filling the air with smoke. A few balls zip by and you hear more than one painful cry and see at least a couple of your fellow Englishman fall back from the barricade clutching their face. (GM rolls a few dice, interprets a better roll for the French as 3 kills to one by the English) Alright Bob, you've got initiative, your turn.

I will readily admit I always feel a little guilty about this. It completely eliminates the quality of the NPCs, their stats, talents, or whatever. Unless you spend the time to come up with some mass combat system that takes that into consideration. I do roll a random dice or two, just to see sort of how a side is doing but its nothing technical, just kind of helps me make up my mind. In the end, if the players were a major part of the action, then their performance steers the result, but if they weren't (Say in a battle of hundreds or thousands) then its totally up to me.

Thoughts?

Remember this post, buddy? You made this post over a year ago Rgrove. Have you learned nothing in the intervening year?

The fine poster on this board, myself included, have told you over. And over. And over again: don't lie to your players. If its "who's die is it anyway?" where the rules are made up and the rolls don't matter, have the decency of Drew Carey and tell them that before the game starts.

I've finally lost my patience with this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for over a year man; at this point I'm joining the haters. It does not matter how many ways you try to sleight of hand this argument into a post (and it is ALWAYS the same argument: "it doesn't make you a BAD GM if you deceive your players because that's what I do and I'M not a BAD GM!") you will always be wrong

Either stop refusing to learn, or stop posting this dreck. We're all tired of it.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009452Nothing wrong with using mook rules, except by Grove's own amount that is not what was happening. Not a single mention of "I was using this game's mook rules" just a lot of I was ignoring this game's rules because I felt like it.

He made his own rules.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009440Why is everyone assuming I made a mistake? I never said that. The armor class was exactly what I intended it to be. I was well aware of what the RAW indicated chainmail should be rated for, I chose to do otherwise. Is that so vile that it has to be assumed to be a mistake?

Your biggest mistake is not realizing or learning from your initial mistake and instead defending it.

You're cheating your players of the game experience by catering to your whims. I wouldn't want to be a player in your games based on your constant posts about ignoring rules to suit the outcome you prefer.

To put it another way, if you are going to freeform the game instead of following the printed rules, tell your players up front so they know what to expect.

Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

This:

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

Is a childish way to respond to this:

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009466To put it another way, if you are going to freeform the game instead of following the printed rules, tell your players up front so they know what to expect.

But every fucking post, man, this is what happens. This is why I get frustrated.